wotfandomcom-20200222-history
Wotwiki talk:OOC
What is OOC? *smacks forehead* Thanks, added a definition of why I titled it that. This will probably be a holding-place name. nae'blis (talk) 18:17, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::"As such, it has been proposed that all references to the "real world" (authors, book pages, fan opinion) be placed in separate sections near the bottom of the page. Currently one such section has been defined, '''Sources', for providing links or book/chapter/page information on where a particular piece of information can be found. Others may be needed for fan speculation."'' :This is a good idea, but I think we should make it clear that it is not mandatory. I.e. Articles that do not start out this way should not be considered "wrong", but rather a "work in progress", and changes that near the article toward this goal should always be considered "more correct" (if there is a disagreement among editors). --Gherald 17:52, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::Good call; we'll probably have to sort out some kind of "Don't bite the newbies" policy later. Since this is still in the early proposal stages, I'm not too hung up on language, but I did improve it somewhat. --nae'blis (talk) 18:17, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) :::Not just newbies -- I can see all of us writing articles that aren't worth "immersifying" immediately, perhaps even ever. Basically I think immersification should be "suggested", and officially regarded as "better", but acknowledged to not necessarily be worthwhile for everything. --Gherald 18:58, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) Fan speculation :Ideas for a fan speculation, etc. section name: (fan-related material will be moved to such a section, not deleted outright) :*Fandom :*In fandom :* Fan opinion ::*This may be serviceable, but I was thinking along the lines that fan discussion can involve things that are not strictly opinion such as trivia, references to the real world, et. al. (more compeling examples escape me atm, but I know they will turn up) --Gherald 18:45, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) :::I just added a Real World References section to Calendar, but that's probably not the best title, or use for it. I'd like to keep these to two or three total, because then maybe we can use CSS to colorize them different from the "In Character" part of the article. --nae'blis (talk) 18:53, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) :::: Hmm, wouldn't that be a little overkill? I would think a split having all IC toward the top of the article and all OOC toward the bottom will provide sufficient differentiation. --Gherald 19:03, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) :*.........? :And I absolutely agree that there's a place for it here. --nae'blis (talk) 18:17, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::I think we need a hard standard on speculation, for clarity's sake, to avoid bitter disputes, and to rein in fanatic anonymouses. I suggest three possible, clear standards: None at all. All of it. Speculation which can be referenced somewhere (IE: the WoT FAQ's speculation would be a good candidate here.) --Maru (talk) 01:55, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::While I agree there's a place for real-world references (the OOC information detailed above), I disagree that speculation belongs here. There are plenty of theory sites, which we can link to, but I strongly believe that the article body is not the place for such things. If people wish to post theories and speculation, they can post at Theoryland or some other appropriate venue.Mhoskins 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Writing in the present tense :"A consequence of this proposal is that the Wikipedia guideline on writing about fiction in the ''present tense only no longer applies: If someone is deceased, write about them as such. Actions in the article body should agree with the timeframe of the series as currently written (for simplicity's sake, anything from Book 11 or Book 10 is "currently happening"). All normal guidelines of verifiability, neutral point of view, and attribution still apply, as if you were writing an encyclopedia from within the fictional universe."'' Yes, the guideline does not apply. But it is still perfectly OK to write in the present tense if you are e.g. describing an event that is mostly relevant within the context of some of earlier book(s) --Gherald 17:52, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) :Added a bit of language to hopefully clarify that. nae'blis (talk) 18:17, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::I think doing it from the past tense would be better/less awkward, from a writing perspective. After all, this is aimed at people who have already read all the books, because of the numerous spoilers. And besides, if this were an encylopedia in Randland, it would have to be past tense anyway (or be one remarkable encylopedia indeed). --Maru (talk) 02:00, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) :I have been writing in present tense for current truths in the series canon, and believe this makes sense for this wiki as a whole. When the next book comes out, some articles will need updating to current, but that will be the case no matter what tense in which it's written. I don't think it's awkward, in any sense, given that most people perusing this wiki will have come off reading the books and will consider events in the latest to be "current." Mhoskins 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)